______________________________ This information is provided to subscribers, friends, faculty, students and alumni of the School of Industrial & Labor Relations (ILR). It is a service of the Institute for Workplace Studies (IWS) in New York City. Stuart Basefsky is responsible for the selection of the contents which is intended to keep researchers, companies, workers, and governments aware of the latest information related to ILR disciplines as it becomes available for the purposes of research, understanding and debate. The content does not reflect the opinions or positions of Cornell University, the School of Industrial & Labor Relations, or that of Mr. Basefsky and should not be construed as such. The service is unique in that it provides the original source documentation, via links, behind the news and research of the day. Use of the information provided is unrestricted. However, it is requested that users acknowledge that the information was found via the IWS Documented News Service.

In January 2006, the President announced a new civilian space policy focusing on exploration. As part of its preparations to implement that policy, NASA asked the NRC to explore long-range science and technology workforce needs to achieve the space exploration vision, identify obstacles to filling those needs, and put forward solutions to those obstacles. As part of the study, the NRC held a workshop to identify important factors affecting NASA s future workforce and its capacity to implement the exploration vision. This interim report presents a summary of the highlights of that workshop and an initial set of findings. The report provides a review of the workforce implications of NASA s plans, an assessment of science and technology workforce demographics, an analysis of factors affecting the aerospace workforce for both NASA and the relevant aerospace industry, and preliminary findings and recommendations. A final report is scheduled for completion in early 2007.

______________________________ This information is provided to subscribers, friends, faculty, students and alumni of the School of Industrial & Labor Relations (ILR). It is a service of the Institute for Workplace Studies (IWS) in New York City. Stuart Basefsky is responsible for the selection of the contents which is intended to keep researchers, companies, workers, and governments aware of the latest information related to ILR disciplines as it becomes available for the purposes of research, understanding and debate. The content does not reflect the opinions or positions of Cornell University, the School of Industrial & Labor Relations, or that of Mr. Basefsky and should not be construed as such. The service is unique in that it provides the original source documentation, via links, behind the news and research of the day. Use of the information provided is unrestricted. However, it is requested that users acknowledge that the information was found via the IWS Documented News Service.

Findings Analysis of 1970 to 2000 decennial census data for families and neighborhoods in the 100 largest metropolitan areas, and in the cities and suburbs of 12 selected metropolitan areas, finds that:

¡ Middle-income neighborhoods as a proportion of all metropolitan neighborhoods declined from 58 percent in 1970 to 41 percent in 2000. This dramatic decline far outpaced the corresponding drop in the proportion of metropolitan families earning middle incomes, from 28 percent in 1970 to 22 percent in 2000.

¡ Between 1970 and 2000, lower-income families became more likely to live in lower-income neighborhoods, and higher-income families in higher-income neighborhoods.Only 37 percent of lower-income families lived in middle-income neighborhoods in 2000, down from 55 percent in 1970.

¡ The proportion of neighborhoods that were middle-income shrank faster than the proportion of families that were middle-income in each of 12 large metropolitan areas examined. Among the 12 metro areas, Los Angeles-Long Beach, Baltimore, and Philadelphia experienced much more dramatic declines in middle-income neighborhoods than San Antonio and Louisville.

¡ Only 23 percent of central-city neighborhoods in the 12 large metropolitan areas had a middle-income profile in 2000, down from 45 percent in 1970. A majority of families (52 percent) and neighborhoods (60 percent) in these cities had low or very low incomes relative to their metropolitan area median in 2000.

¡ A much larger proportion44 percentof suburban neighborhoods in the 12 metropolitan areas had a middle-income profile in 2000. Yet this proportion fell over the 30-year period, too, from 64 percent in 1970, accompanying a smaller decline in suburban middle-income families. Suburban middle-income neighborhoods were replaced in roughly equal measure by low-income and very high-income neighborhoods.

Although middle-income families have declined considerably as a share of the overall family income distribution, it is noteworthy that middle-class neighborhoods have disappeared even faster in metropolitan areas, especially in cities. This trend suggests increased sorting of high- and low-income families into neighborhoods that reflect their own economic profiles, and increased vulnerability of middle-class neighborhoods tipping towards higher- or lower-income status. The resulting disparities among neighborhoods create new challenges for policies to enhance household mobility, improve the delivery of key public services, and promote private-sector investment in struggling locales.

______________________________ This information is provided to subscribers, friends, faculty, students and alumni of the School of Industrial & Labor Relations (ILR). It is a service of the Institute for Workplace Studies (IWS) in New York City. Stuart Basefsky is responsible for the selection of the contents which is intended to keep researchers, companies, workers, and governments aware of the latest information related to ILR disciplines as it becomes available for the purposes of research, understanding and debate. The content does not reflect the opinions or positions of Cornell University, the School of Industrial & Labor Relations, or that of Mr. Basefsky and should not be construed as such. The service is unique in that it provides the original source documentation, via links, behind the news and research of the day. Use of the information provided is unrestricted. However, it is requested that users acknowledge that the information was found via the IWS Documented News Service.

Rising tuition and student loan debt is a national problem. No state has escaped the college cost crunch. But individual states have been affected to different degrees. This report provides information on the college affordability problem in each state as well as how students and their families in each state would benefit from Democratic proposals. The following tables and individualized state reports provide information for each state on:

 The rising cost of college;  The erosion of the value of the Pell Grant;  The amount of student loan debt incurred by college graduates;  The amount of family income needed to pay for college;  The amount of savings if student loan interest rates were cut in half;  The reduction in monthly costs if student loan payments were capped at 15 percent of a borrowers discretionary income;  The increase in the average Pell Grant award and the number of students eligible if the maximum Pell Grant were increased to $5,100; and  The number of students and families who are likely to benefit from re-instituting the college tuition tax deduction, which expired at the end of 2005.

______________________________ This information is provided to subscribers, friends, faculty, students and alumni of the School of Industrial & Labor Relations (ILR). It is a service of the Institute for Workplace Studies (IWS) in New York City. Stuart Basefsky is responsible for the selection of the contents which is intended to keep researchers, companies, workers, and governments aware of the latest information related to ILR disciplines as it becomes available for the purposes of research, understanding and debate. The content does not reflect the opinions or positions of Cornell University, the School of Industrial & Labor Relations, or that of Mr. Basefsky and should not be construed as such. The service is unique in that it provides the original source documentation, via links, behind the news and research of the day. Use of the information provided is unrestricted. However, it is requested that users acknowledge that the information was found via the IWS Documented News Service.

ILR International Programs at Cornell is pleased to bring to your attention the first issue of ILR International eNews, featuring online highlights of the ILR School's teaching, research, and outreach activities around the world. We will publish eNews quarterly and invite all who may be interested to subscribe and share it with others.

______________________________ This information is provided to subscribers, friends, faculty, students and alumni of the School of Industrial & Labor Relations (ILR). It is a service of the Institute for Workplace Studies (IWS) in New York City. Stuart Basefsky is responsible for the selection of the contents which is intended to keep researchers, companies, workers, and governments aware of the latest information related to ILR disciplines as it becomes available for the purposes of research, understanding and debate. The content does not reflect the opinions or positions of Cornell University, the School of Industrial & Labor Relations, or that of Mr. Basefsky and should not be construed as such. The service is unique in that it provides the original source documentation, via links, behind the news and research of the day. Use of the information provided is unrestricted. However, it is requested that users acknowledge that the information was found via the IWS Documented News Service.

AND MUCH MORE...including TABLES....______________________________ This information is provided to subscribers, friends, faculty, students and alumni of the School of Industrial & Labor Relations (ILR). It is a service of the Institute for Workplace Studies (IWS) in New York City. Stuart Basefsky is responsible for the selection of the contents which is intended to keep researchers, companies, workers, and governments aware of the latest information related to ILR disciplines as it becomes available for the purposes of research, understanding and debate. The content does not reflect the opinions or positions of Cornell University, the School of Industrial & Labor Relations, or that of Mr. Basefsky and should not be construed as such. The service is unique in that it provides the original source documentation, via links, behind the news and research of the day. Use of the information provided is unrestricted. However, it is requested that users acknowledge that the information was found via the IWS Documented News Service.

The Foundation is a European Union body, one of the first to be established to work in specialised areas of EU policy. Specifically, it was set up by the European Council (Council Regulation (EEC) No. 1365/75 of 26 May 1975), to contribute to the planning and design of better living and working conditions in Europe. Role: To provide information, advice and expertise  on living and working conditions, industrial relations and managing change in Europe  for key actors in the field of EU social policy on the basis of comparative information, research and analysis.Themes: Employment and working conditions; Worklife balance; Industrial relations and partnership; Social cohesionTarget Audience: Employers; EU policymakers; Governments; Trade unions Three main tasks: monitoring and understanding change; research and exploring what works; communicating and sharing ideas and experience

The European Restructuring Monitor is a tool designed to provide a quick overview of restructuring activities in Europe and their employment consequences. It provides information on individual restructuring cases and allows for the compilation of statistics comparing countries, sectors and types of restructuring. All information is based on the analysis of daily newspapers and the business press in the EU25 and the two acceding countries: Bulgaria and Romania.

Focusing on the trends and drivers of change in selected sectors of the economy, EMCC presents a series of forward-looking features. Three separate articles are published for each sector. The first paints a broad picture of the changing dynamic of the sector, the second presents future scenarios and the third draws out key policy issues.

EMCC dossiers highlight specific issues and events relevant to the major economic changes, and to the European social and political agenda. Each dossier places the issue in context, gathers information from different sources and enables the user to consider the wider picture. The dossiers are published on a regular basis.

Survey data reports are summaries of national working conditions survey findings in countries covered by the EWCO network. Results from these surveys provide an interesting complement to the results of the Foundation's own working conditions surveys.

Topic reports are significant pieces of comparative analysis covering developments at EU and national level on a pre-selected theme. They are based on structured contributions from the national correspondents, each covering their own country. A synthesis 'topic report' is prepared by a lead correspondent and the national contributions are also published.

EurLife is an interactive database on living conditions and quality of life in Europe, offering data drawn from the Foundation's own surveys and from other published sources. The data provided deals with the objective living conditions and subjective well-being of European citizens. It covers the 25 current EU Member States and three candidate countries: Bulgaria, Romania and Turkey.

______________________________ This information is provided to subscribers, friends, faculty, students and alumni of the School of Industrial & Labor Relations (ILR). It is a service of the Institute for Workplace Studies (IWS) in New York City. Stuart Basefsky is responsible for the selection of the contents which is intended to keep researchers, companies, workers, and governments aware of the latest information related to ILR disciplines as it becomes available for the purposes of research, understanding and debate. The content does not reflect the opinions or positions of Cornell University, the School of Industrial & Labor Relations, or that of Mr. Basefsky and should not be construed as such. The service is unique in that it provides the original source documentation, via links, behind the news and research of the day. Use of the information provided is unrestricted. However, it is requested that users acknowledge that the information was found via the IWS Documented News Service.

This is the second issue of the European Economic and Employment Policy Brief in 2006. This issue examines the outcome of the OECDs two-year review of its Jobs Strategy. It shows that the OECD has shifted its position on a number of important policy issues since the Jobs Strategy ­ which has often been used by governments to support policies of deregulation and welfare cutbacks ­ was originally launched in 1994. The new Jobs Strategy recognises that different policy packages, and notably the Nordic model, which incorporates strong welfare states, centralised wage bargaining and extensive use of active labour market policy, can be successful in reducing unemployment. A limited role is also given to macroeconomic policy in speeding up the impact of structural reforms. However, in spite of the weight of evidence produced by the OECDs own research, the policy recommendations of the new Jobs Strategy remain tilted towards the US-style liberal model. And the treatment of macroeconomic policies, while a step in the right direction, still underestimates the key role of macro policy in strategies to reduce unemployment.

______________________________ This information is provided to subscribers, friends, faculty, students and alumni of the School of Industrial & Labor Relations (ILR). It is a service of the Institute for Workplace Studies (IWS) in New York City. Stuart Basefsky is responsible for the selection of the contents which is intended to keep researchers, companies, workers, and governments aware of the latest information related to ILR disciplines as it becomes available for the purposes of research, understanding and debate. The content does not reflect the opinions or positions of Cornell University, the School of Industrial & Labor Relations, or that of Mr. Basefsky and should not be construed as such. The service is unique in that it provides the original source documentation, via links, behind the news and research of the day. Use of the information provided is unrestricted. However, it is requested that users acknowledge that the information was found via the IWS Documented News Service.

WASHINGTON, June 28, 2006 ­ Despite widespread use of the Medicare federal subsidy, a vast majority of employers are planning to curtail their retiree medical plans for current and future retirees in the next five years, according to a new study by Watson Wyatt Worldwide, a global human capital consulting firm.

The survey of 163 companies found that only 5 percent of employers do not expect to place any additional restrictions on their medical benefits for future retirees over the next five years and 7 percent do not expect to implement further restrictions for current retirees. Fourteen percent of employers plan to eliminate the benefit entirely for future post-65 retirees and 6 percent plan to eliminate it for their current post-65 retirees.

One bit of good news for employees is that the vast majority of employers currently providing retiree medical benefits will continue to do so, said Cara Jareb, director of retiree medical consulting at Watson Wyatt. The bad news is that retirees ­ especially future retirees ­ will have to pay more for their coverage.

Nearly two-thirds of employers (65 percent) anticipate increasing the financial contributions for future retirees and half (50 percent) expect to change their plan design. Twenty-four percent intend to tighten eligibility for future retirees and 10 percent expect to place a new or lower cap on their employer contributions. As more companies adopt account-based programs for current employees, 26 percent anticipate offering this option to their future retirees

AND MORE...including TABLES....______________________________ This information is provided to subscribers, friends, faculty, students and alumni of the School of Industrial & Labor Relations (ILR). It is a service of the Institute for Workplace Studies (IWS) in New York City. Stuart Basefsky is responsible for the selection of the contents which is intended to keep researchers, companies, workers, and governments aware of the latest information related to ILR disciplines as it becomes available for the purposes of research, understanding and debate. The content does not reflect the opinions or positions of Cornell University, the School of Industrial & Labor Relations, or that of Mr. Basefsky and should not be construed as such. The service is unique in that it provides the original source documentation, via links, behind the news and research of the day. Use of the information provided is unrestricted. However, it is requested that users acknowledge that the information was found via the IWS Documented News Service.

* 60% of respondents have made special pension contributions in the last year * Use of derivatives to hedge liabilities has shown limited growth so far * Over half have increased the longevity assumptions they use to calculate pension liabilities

Last year, 60% of companies made special pension contributions - over and above normal or statutory contributions - to help plug their scheme deficits, according to a survey by Mercer Human Resource Consulting and The Association of Corporate Treasurers. CFOs and treasurers in over 100 companies, most of which were in the FTSE 350, participated in the survey.

The greatest driver for these payments were scheme-specific funding requirements (30%), whereby companies have to top up under-funded schemes to reduce their deficits, and general risk mitigation (25%). Few companies (7%) made special contributions purely to reduce their Pension Protection Fund (PPF) levy or for tax reasons (7%).

Mr Keogh, Worldwide Partner at Mercer, commented: It is interesting that scheme-specific funding was the primary reason why companies made additional pension contributions last year, as the relevant legislation was technically not in effect, but clearly having an influence. This year we are likely to see more companies following suit.

According to the survey, only 12% of companies undertook a specific financing agreement, for example taking out a loan, to fund a special contribution. Nevertheless the finance must have come from somewhere, and the special pension contribution will have been a factor in overall cashflow planning. Borrowing money to fund a pension scheme involves paying back a loan by raising another. There can be tax benefits to doing this, which some companies seem to be taking advantage of, said Mr Keogh.

AND MORE....______________________________ This information is provided to subscribers, friends, faculty, students and alumni of the School of Industrial & Labor Relations (ILR). It is a service of the Institute for Workplace Studies (IWS) in New York City. Stuart Basefsky is responsible for the selection of the contents which is intended to keep researchers, companies, workers, and governments aware of the latest information related to ILR disciplines as it becomes available for the purposes of research, understanding and debate. The content does not reflect the opinions or positions of Cornell University, the School of Industrial & Labor Relations, or that of Mr. Basefsky and should not be construed as such. The service is unique in that it provides the original source documentation, via links, behind the news and research of the day. Use of the information provided is unrestricted. However, it is requested that users acknowledge that the information was found via the IWS Documented News Service.

Real gross domestic product -- the output of goods and services produced by labor and property located in the United States -- increased at an annual rate of 5.6 percent in the first quarter of 2006, according to final estimates released by the Bureau of Economic Analysis. In the fourth quarter, real GDP increased 1.7 percent.

The GDP estimates released today are based on more complete source data than were available for the preliminary estimates issued last month. In the preliminary estimates, the increase in real GDP was 5.3 percent (see "Revisions" on page 3).

The increase in real GDP in the first quarter primarily reflected positive contributions from personal consumption expenditures (PCE), exports, equipment and software, and federal government spending. Imports, which are a subtraction in the calculation of GDP, increased.

The acceleration in real GDP growth in the first quarter primarily reflected an upturn in PCE for durable goods, an acceleration in exports, an upturn in federal government spending, and an acceleration in equipment and software that were partly offset by a downturn in private inventory investment.

AND MUCH MORE...including TABLES....______________________________ This information is provided to subscribers, friends, faculty, students and alumni of the School of Industrial & Labor Relations (ILR). It is a service of the Institute for Workplace Studies (IWS) in New York City. Stuart Basefsky is responsible for the selection of the contents which is intended to keep researchers, companies, workers, and governments aware of the latest information related to ILR disciplines as it becomes available for the purposes of research, understanding and debate. The content does not reflect the opinions or positions of Cornell University, the School of Industrial & Labor Relations, or that of Mr. Basefsky and should not be construed as such. The service is unique in that it provides the original source documentation, via links, behind the news and research of the day. Use of the information provided is unrestricted. However, it is requested that users acknowledge that the information was found via the IWS Documented News Service.

The U.S. net international investment position at yearend 2005 was -$2,693.8 billion (preliminary) with direct investment valued at current cost, as the value of foreign investments in the United States exceeded the value of U.S. investments abroad (table 1). At yearend 2004, the U.S. net international investment position was -$2,360.8 billion (revised).

The -$333.0 billion change in the net investment position from yearend 2004 to yearend 2005 was largely due to record private net foreign purchases of U.S. securities, including U.S. Treasury securities, and to depreciation of most major foreign currencies against the U.S. dollar, which lowered the dollar value of U.S.-owned assets abroad. The impact of these net purchases and exchange-rate changes was largely offset by price appreciation of U.S.-held foreign stocks that surpassed by a large amount price appreciation of foreign-held U.S. stocks.

With direct investment valued at the current stock market value of owners' equity, the net investment position was -$2,546.2 billion (preliminary) at yearend 2005, compared with -$2,448.7 billion (revised) at yearend 2004. The -$97.4 billion change in the net investment position on this basis resulted from the same factors as above. Price increases on direct investment were larger on this basis than with direct investment valued at current cost. Other highlights include:

Foreign acquisitions of assets in the United States were $1,212.3 billion in 2005, down from $1,450.2 billion in 2004. Foreign official acquisitions were $199.5 billion, down from last year's record $387.8 billion, as a result of sharply reduced net purchases of U.S. Treasury securities. Partly offsetting were stronger private net foreign purchases of U.S. securities, including U.S. Treasury securities. Net private foreign purchases of U.S. Treasury securities were a record $199.5 billion, up from $102.9 billion. Net private foreign purchases of U.S. securities other than U.S. Treasury securities were a record $474.1 billion, up from $381.5 billion in 2004, of which net purchases of U.S. bonds were $388.4 billion, up from $321.9 billion, and net purchases of U.S. stocks were $85.8 billion, up from $59.5 billion. U.S. banks' liabilities increased $179.8 billion, down from last year's increase of $336.7 billion, and U.S. nonbanks' liabilities increased $30.1 billion, down from $93.3 billion. Foreign direct investment in the United States increased $109.8 billion, down from an increase of $133.2 billion.

U.S. acquisitions of assets abroad were $426.8 billion in 2005, down from a record $867.8 billion in 2004, as U.S. direct investment abroad and U.S. banks' and nonbanks' claims slowed sharply from last year's pace. U.S. direct investment abroad increased only $9.1 billion, down from an increase of $244.1 billion in 2004. U.S. banks' claims increased $213.0 billion, down from an increase of $361.6 billion in 2004, and U.S. nonbanks' claims increased $44.2 billion, down from an increase of $120.0 billion. In contrast, net U.S. purchases of foreign securities, mostly foreign stocks, increased to $180.1 billion from $146.5 billion.

Price appreciation in most foreign stock markets substantially increased the value of U.S. holdings of foreign corporate stocks and the value of owners' equity of U.S. direct investment abroad on a market-value basis. Price appreciation in the U.S. stock market also increased the value of foreign holdings of U.S. corporate stocks, but by a much smaller amount.

Depreciation of most major foreign currencies against the U.S. dollar from yearend 2004 to yearend 2005 lowered the dollar value of U.S.-owned assets abroad, especially the value of U.S.-owned foreign corporate stocks and U.S. direct investment abroad at market value.

AND MUCH MORE...including TABLES and CHARTS.....

______________________________ This information is provided to subscribers, friends, faculty, students and alumni of the School of Industrial & Labor Relations (ILR). It is a service of the Institute for Workplace Studies (IWS) in New York City. Stuart Basefsky is responsible for the selection of the contents which is intended to keep researchers, companies, workers, and governments aware of the latest information related to ILR disciplines as it becomes available for the purposes of research, understanding and debate. The content does not reflect the opinions or positions of Cornell University, the School of Industrial & Labor Relations, or that of Mr. Basefsky and should not be construed as such. The service is unique in that it provides the original source documentation, via links, behind the news and research of the day. Use of the information provided is unrestricted. However, it is requested that users acknowledge that the information was found via the IWS Documented News Service.

Abstract: Free movement of organisations is a fundamental principle of the European Union. A case currently before the European Court of Justice addresses the relationship between the rights of organisations to free movement and the rights of workers to take collective action ­ an issue on which the social partners take differing positions.

______________________________ This information is provided to subscribers, friends, faculty, students and alumni of the School of Industrial & Labor Relations (ILR). It is a service of the Institute for Workplace Studies (IWS) in New York City. Stuart Basefsky is responsible for the selection of the contents which is intended to keep researchers, companies, workers, and governments aware of the latest information related to ILR disciplines as it becomes available for the purposes of research, understanding and debate. The content does not reflect the opinions or positions of Cornell University, the School of Industrial & Labor Relations, or that of Mr. Basefsky and should not be construed as such. The service is unique in that it provides the original source documentation, via links, behind the news and research of the day. Use of the information provided is unrestricted. However, it is requested that users acknowledge that the information was found via the IWS Documented News Service.

The Catherwood Library has been building and maintaining a collection of union literature since it was founded in 1946. Among the key resources of this collection are our extensive holdings of labor union periodicals. In addition to the current and historic titles that can be found in our library, many labor union periodicals are now available on the web.

This guide lists Cornell University Library location information for current U. S. labor union periodicals as well as Internet sites for periodicals in this class.

______________________________ This information is provided to subscribers, friends, faculty, students and alumni of the School of Industrial & Labor Relations (ILR). It is a service of the Institute for Workplace Studies (IWS) in New York City. Stuart Basefsky is responsible for the selection of the contents which is intended to keep researchers, companies, workers, and governments aware of the latest information related to ILR disciplines as it becomes available for the purposes of research, understanding and debate. The content does not reflect the opinions or positions of Cornell University, the School of Industrial & Labor Relations, or that of Mr. Basefsky and should not be construed as such. The service is unique in that it provides the original source documentation, via links, behind the news and research of the day. Use of the information provided is unrestricted. However, it is requested that users acknowledge that the information was found via the IWS Documented News Service.

The number of Native Hawaiian- and other Pacific Islander-ownedbusinesses grew 49.4 percent between 1997 and 2002, over three times thenational average of 10.3 percent for all businesses. The 28,948 businessesgenerated about $4.3 billion in revenues, up 3.4 percent from 1997. This isaccording to a new report,<http://www.census.gov/prod/ec02/sb0200csnhpi.pdf>Survey of BusinessOwners: Native Hawaiian- and Other Pacific Islander-Owned Firms: 2002[PDF], released today by the U.S. Census Bureau.

More than half (58 percent) of all Native Hawaiian and other PacificIslander firms were Native Hawaiian-owned (16,776). Guamanian- orChamorran-owned firms accounted for 13.1 percent (3,797) and Samoan-ownedfirms comprised 7.6 percent (2,204). Other Pacific Islander-owned firms,which are not Native Hawaiian-, Guamanian- or Chamorran-, or Samoan-owned,accounted for 21.8 percent of the total firms (6,324).

Nearly 13 percent of all Native Hawaiian- and other PacificIslander-owned firms had paid employees in 2002. These 3,693 businessesemployed more than 29,000 people and generated revenues of $3.5 billion.The average receipts for these firms were $948,323.

Other highlights:* In 2002, nearly 21,000 Native Hawaiian- and other PacificIslander-owned firms operated in health care and social assistance; otherservices (such as personal services, and repair and maintenance); retailtrade; administrative and support and waste management and remediationservices; professional, scientific and technical services; and construction.* Construction accounted for 21.2 percent of all Native Hawaiian- andother Pacific Islander-owned business revenue.* There were 727 Native Hawaiian- and other Pacific Islander-ownedfirms with receipts of $1 million or more. These firms accounted for 2.5percent of the total number of Native Hawaiian- and other PacificIslander-owned firms and 66.8 percent of their total receipts.* There were 28 Native Hawaiian- and other Pacific Islander-owned firmswith 100 employees or more, generating more than $698 million in grossreceipts (19.9 percent of the total revenue for Native Hawaiian- and otherPacific Islander-owned employer firms).* Two states ­ Hawaii and California ­ accounted for 62.3 percent ($2.7billion) of all Native Hawaiian- and other Pacific Islander-owned businessrevenue.* States accounting for the highest number of Native Hawaiian- andother Pacific Islander-owned firms included Hawaii, California, New York,Florida and Texas.* Hawaii and California accounted for 64.9 percent (10,887) of allNative Hawaiian-owned firms.* California accounted for 46.1 percent (1,752) of all Guamanian- orChamorran-owned firms.* Honolulu County, Hawaii, had the largest number of Native Hawaiian-and other Pacific Islander-owned firms in 2002 with 5,052. These businessesaccounted for 17.5 percent of all Native Hawaiian- and other PacificIslander-owned businesses and generated $1 billion in receipts.* For cities, Honolulu led the nation with 2,415 Native Hawaiian- andother Pacific Islander-owned firms with revenues of $615 million. New Yorkwas second in number of firms (2,341) with business revenue of $68 million.

AND MORE....______________________________This information is provided to subscribers, friends, faculty, students andalumni of the School of Industrial & Labor Relations (ILR). It is a serviceof the Institute for Workplace Studies (IWS) in New York City. StuartBasefsky is responsible for the selection of the contents which is intendedto keep researchers, companies, workers, and governments aware of thelatest information related to ILR disciplines as it becomes available forthe purposes of research, understanding and debate. The content does notreflect the opinions or positions of Cornell University, the School ofIndustrial & Labor Relations, or that of Mr. Basefsky and should not beconstrued as such. The service is unique in that it provides the originalsource documentation, via links, behind the news and research of the day.Use of the information provided is unrestricted. However, it is requestedthat users acknowledge that the information was found via the IWSDocumented News Service.